I really like the old Codco saying "Horrified, yet at the same time titillated" - but an ongoing experience I've been having the last few days wuth a local email group has been anything but. It has simply been horrifying x 10.
It all started when a lady who I know who I also know has for some reason got a serious vendetta against the head of Dogs Deserve Better decided to send a very vageky worded email to this group that I don't know if she knew I belonged to saying that "DDB was going after sled dogs", and that in fact for those people on the list who didn't know anything about DDB - it was a group that was in the pocket of animal rights groups like PETA and this lady had been watching it very closely and it really was quite an evil organization, set to basically take over the world.
So I decided that I was of course not going to let the 600 or so members of this Yahoo community only hear from this very biased and wrong woman about DDB, so I put myself out there as a vocal member of DDB and said that the organization was in fact not a right wing organization but a grass roots organization that was simply trying to get dogs off of chains one dog at a time and that we were not in fact "going after sled dogs" but that Tammy Grimes had simply signed an online petition. Did that mean the whole organization was going after sled dogs?
The worst part is that that several members of this "illustrious" Yahoo group - made up mainly of CKC show breeders - chimed in - in FAVOUR of continuing the practice of chaining dogs. Can you believe it? In the last couple days I have been absolutely cricified on this forum because I belong to this anti-chaining organization. How dare I try to work to free dogs from chains, and suggest that all dogs belong inside all the time. And that is an actual quote from one of the posts.
The forum is moderated and one of my posts was even refused to be posted by the moderators - a post where I said that the head of the DDB organization simply signed a petition about sled dogs was the sum and total of our organization's involvement in "going after sled dogs" - and if that was all it took for an organization to be seen as going after sled dogs - then I also saw on that same online petition that a member of our local organization "Maritime Animal Rescue" had signed as well - so by association that means that "Maritime Animal Rescue was ALSO going after sled dogs just like Dogs Deserve Better was! And if that was the case - then that also meant that a local very well known siberian husky breeder was ALSO going after sled dogs because she was ALSO a member of Maritime Animal Rescue - and how THEN did that breeder feel about the original woman accusing Dogs Deserve Better about going after slede dogs if it also meant that she was accusing the siberian husky breeder of going after sled dogs? Now WHY would a post like that be refused? hhmmm.....
I tell you, it's no wonder I hate purebred dog people sometimes. Some of them are worse bitches then their female dogs....
I know EXACTLY what you mean, Joan.
ReplyDeleteEvery single measure meant to protect dogs from the negligence and abuse of humans will likely be fought by much of the dog community, especially dog breeders.
They're a funny lot, these dog owners. They're so desperate to protect their perceived "right to own a dog" (even though no such "right" exists), they can't see how dogs are being neglected or abused, in the process.
They seem especially oblivious to how fighting every dog control measure only succeeds in prolonging the kinds of unethical dog care practices that cause the precise kinds of dog-related problems that inspire more dog control measures. It's a vicious circle that they seem to be completely unaware they're perpetuating.
1. Anti-tethering law proposed after several people injured by tethered dogs, and experts agree tethering tends to cause aggressive behaviours in many dogs.
2. Misguided members of the dog community arbitrarily (and in quite a paranoid fashion, if you ask me) decide this is some sort of plot against them, so they start to vilify anyone who supports what any sane person would agree is a step in the right direction.
3. Because of this outspoken opposition, politicians become less resolved in their support for the anti-tethering bill, and it fails to pass.
4. More people are injured by tethered dogs.
5. The public grows increasingly hysterical about dogs, in general. (They don't necessarily differentiate between chained, aggressive dogs, and properly reared pets.)
6. A child is killed by a chained dog.
7. The public and politicians reintroduce the anti-tethering bill, and tack on a breed ban, public muzzle requirements, and other mandatory measures for all dogs.
8. This version of the bill passes because of the sympathetic images of the little girl killed by the dog. All dog owners are viewed as pariahs. Owning a dog is no longer much fun, and dogs are abandoned at shelters in unprecedented numbers.
9. The public muzzle orders, the breed ban, the overall climate of hatred towards dog owners means fewer and fewer dogs are being properly socialized in public. People who relied on tethering their out of control dogs now just let them roam at-large. Dog bites go up. More attacks take place.
10. Even more restrictions on dog ownership are proposed and passed. The people who vehemently fought the first anti-tethering law now wish that was the law in place, instead of what they got by doing virtually nothing to practically assist in ridding society of irresponsible dog owners.
Why is it not okay for others to generalze but you have no problem generalizing a group of dog owners if some didn't agree with you. I guess nobody, including yourself is above being human. Some people on a group my agree with chaining and some don't but it doesn't mean the whole lot must because you only heard 2 opinions.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the above post from "Anonymous" about how I am generalizing about all the members of the group and how I think that they must all think that it's okay to chain dogs because 2 people came out and said that dogs should be chained when they attacked me for my anti-chaining stance. What I say to that is - if you don't think it's okay to chain dogs - then why didn't you make a post backing me up and supporting me? Why did you let those people continue to crucify me? I think that all the other 100's of people not saying anything meant that they were implicitly agreeing with those posters. How could I NOT think that? If you don't say anything then that means you agree with them. That's what I think. How could I not think that? If you have a different opinion than the one that's hollering - you should say something. That's what I've always done - when I see someone being bullied - and I don't think they're being treated fairly - I almost always will butt in and stick up for them. Because that's the type of person I am. Especially when that person is saying the correct thing. So where were you??....... Enough said.
ReplyDelete